Agnostic.com

23 8

I have had an unusual amount of free time at work and stumbled upon this clip of Michio Kaku discussing God and science. Curious to know what you guys think of what he says.

Norman347 5 Oct 30
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

23 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

5

I think he is wrong. (1) The universe is EVERYTHING that exists. If there are multiple bubbles, the bubbles are not universes. They are PARTS of the infinite universe. (2) Matter and energy must have existed throughout infinite time, because they cannot arise out of nothingness. (3) There can be no creator of matter and energy, because that "creator" must be made of matter and energy.

Wow - very good - one of the few that seems to get the Universe.

@rsabbatini I agree that there is good evidence for big bangs. But big bangs would not create matter and energy out of nothing. There must already be matter and energy for a big bang to occur.

@rsabbatini There was a Big Bang - however it only explains the age and positions of observable galaxies. It had no effect on time or space.

5

AFAIK, there is no experimental evidence for string theory.

It doesn't mean there won't ever be, but it does mean that there is no current way of testing string theory. On that basis, yes, his assertions fail the burden of proof on that alone, let alone the rest of his assumptions making Occam groan in his grave.

4

I think he thinks to much about including everyone in his world view. That said I had no problem with what he was saying until he mentioned that the Universe is a mixture of Christianity and Buddhism. The Universe has no responsibility to make itself in our image or any image we can conceive of.

3

What dressing does he use on that word salad?

3

when some white haired guy floats down to earth on a fluffy white clous and starts throwing bolts of lightning in my direction ... then I will believe god exists ... then I only have to decide which one

3

I think he’s interesting and entertaining but he’s definitely playing to the house. He got the desired response but what he states as fact is merely opinion and does not prove what is unprovable.

3

I personally think he forgot to go and have a haircut.

3

Idle speculation. What he says is unknowable to the human mind. I also disagree with Hawking. It is impossible to prove either the existence or non-existence of any god. I choose to believe that no gods exist. I do not believe that anyone can present me with any evidence that my belief is untrue.

3

Colorful fabrication.

skado Level 9 Oct 30, 2019
3

Yes, his physics is sound, but he's still making the assumption that there must have been some sort of divine creator involved. Hawking once opined that all this doesn't rule out such an entity but it does limit where he might do His work. I remain unconvinced by this weak argument. I like this guy up to the point where he starts chucking unnecessary assumptions into this. Occam's Razor fail.

I don’t feel he actually assumed a “creator.” But he used a very oversimplified explanation of the multiverse. Yes, he talked about melding the two religions, but I don’t think he literally meant both religions are correct. More of a philosophical amalgamation of the two, existence and the Big Bang.

2

Based on his Analogy, proving the bubble in a bubble bath would demonstrate a creator. The "who created the creator" argument still holds in this circumstance.

2

The Universe is simple - its always been here - there was no beginning of time - and there is no end of space.
Matter interacts at a constant rate - which we call time.

gater Level 7 Oct 30, 2019
2
A curious, and slightly humorous, melding of Buddhism and Presbyterianism.  As he admits he has had two conflicting worldviews in his head since childhood and was apparently driven to close his cognative dissonance.

However, Hawking's claim to have "proven" that there is no possibility that God created the Universe, or even to deny the possibility for a creator to exist, if that is what he really said, is just plain silly. I don't think he ever claimed to have proven that God does not exit. However, he did say something similar in his final book, Brief Answers to Big Questions:

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

As anyone who has ever studied religion and theology knows, theists typically hold that God exists outside of time and space, and actually created time and space. The sad thing is that the claim that God can't exist because he "didn't have time" is the sort of thing that makes theists laugh at the theological ignorance of scientists. Dawkins does this sort of thing too, sometimes. If you want to rid theists of their superstitions, don't flaunt your ignorance of their beliefs. They are likely never to listen to you again.

Hawking's take never made any sence. In order for anything to change time is required. The fact the IF the Big Bang is correct then time was required to exist before whatever kicked it off could happen which implies times existed before the Big Bang. Science is putting forward ideas in an attempt to tease out what knowledge it can. It doesn't care about dogma. Anyway, not all cosmologists agree the Big Bang is valid standard model. There are other standard models which seem to better fit the body of observational data we have accumulated.

@Norman347 A very good point about Hawking who, by the way, is considered to be over-rated by just about every professional physicist/cosmologist around. I would be curious as to what other standard models, other than the Big Bang, you consider to better fit observational data, and I do mean observational data, not speculation. Usually, when I find people who denounce the Big Bang, I find they are denouncing an out-dated model of the Big Bang from their school days, or denouncing some scientist's speculation about the Big Bang.

I wish I could know what this discussion would sound like fifty years from now... or even twenty years from now.

@TheMiddleWay Cyclic or oscillating universe theories have been around for nearly 100 years and used to be described as a potentially infinite number of Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches, so I tend to view them as modified and extended versions of the Big Bang Theory. I find them attractive too, but I try not to let my attraction to them to get in the way of my objectivity. The article you reference also discusses the controversy over Penrose's interpretation of the data.
Ever read 'White Holes' by John Gribbin in 1977? Not a serious scientific theory, but interesting, entertaining and thought-provoking.

2

Just because he argues that one tenet of Christianity is compatible with science doesn’t prove the validity of Christianity.

2

It's as valid as anything else I have ever heard come out of religion. Probably moreso, given that most of what comes out of religion is preposterous.

1

I just predicted it would be about string theory since that's what he's always trying to sell to us lol. I definitely got the vibe that he had to come up with that "melding" as a way to settle any confusion in his mind.

1

Ohferpetessake, more woo. Couldn't you volunteer at a soup kitchen, or work for a candidate, instead of this stuff?

1

Very interesting, not a proof of god at all

bobwjr Level 10 Oct 30, 2019
1

Maybe we're just an ant farm in a sixth grade science class.

1

Well, just read his book - PARALLEL WORLDS. Then you'll understand everything. (not)

0

Meh.

0

I have no idea if there was a "big bang" or not. If so, did it have to make noise and what started at that very moment? All I know for sure is that we cannot conceive of "nothing." It is impossible for us to see that everything came out of nothing. This means that there was always something and us and our universe came out of that something.

And it makes sense to me that the "something that has always existed" is energy; and energy sometimes takes the form of matter--to include matter that can think and be self-aware.

@Joanne Other than us many living creatures there is no proof that matter thinks and is self aware. Matter has patterns that we are trying to figure out.

@DenoPenno Are you including flora under the heading of 'many creatures'? Evidence is now suggesting communication amongst trees and fungi.

@DenoPenno : I will refer to Carl Sagan in this matter: "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself." We are not THE ONLY way, but A way. And, all matter does not need to evolve to the point where it can think and be self aware for some of it to do so.

0

His viewpoint is every bit a valid as Elon Musk's and Neil deGrasse Tyson's proposition that our universe is a simulation created by a superior race.

I don't know about whether Elon Must actually thinks this; but I am quite certain that Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't actually think that this is an actual possibility--he just likes it as a thought experiment.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:420024
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.